Does vitamin D strengthen the increase in femoral neck BMD in osteoporotic women treated with estrogen?

Effect of supplemental vitamin D3 on bone mineral density: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Context

There is still controversy over the effect of vitamin D3 supplementation on bone health.

Objective

The effects of vitamin D3 supplementation on bone mineral density (BMD) and markers of bone turnover, as well as the dose-response relationship between vitamin D3 and bone health in adults, were evaluated.

Data Sources

The PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane, Web of Science, and AGRIS databases were searched for articles published through April 30, 2022. Thirty-nine of the 6409 records identified met the inclusion criteria

Data Extraction

Data were extracted from articles by 2 authors, and data extraction was cross-checked independently. A random-effects model was used to estimate the pooled effect size and the associated 95%CI for the effect of vitamin D3 for each outcome. A one-stage random-effects dose-response model was used to estimate the dose-response relationship between vitamin D3 supplementation and BMD.

Data Analysis

Results of meta-analysis showed a beneficial effect of vitamin D3 at the lumbar spine (standardized mean difference [SMD] = 0.06; 95%CI, 0.01–0.12) and femoral neck (SMD = 0.25; 95%CI, 0.09–0.41). Dose-response analysis revealed a linear relationship between vitamin D3 supplementation doses and BMD at the femoral neck, lumbar spine, and total hip sites. No significant effect of vitamin D3 supplementation on whole-body or total hip BMD was observed (P > 0.05). Vitamin D3 supplementation significantly decreased BMD at both proximal and distal forearm (SMD = −0.16; 95%CI, −0.26 to −0.06). The variables of ethnicity, age, baseline 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25[OH]D), menopause status, vitamin D3 dosing frequency, and bone health status (P interaction = 0.02) altered the effect of vitamin D3 supplementation on BMD. Additionally, a nonlinear relationship between vitamin D3 supplement doses and markers of bone turnover was found.

Conclusion

A protective effect of vitamin D3 supplementation on BMD of the lumbar spine, femoral neck, and total hip is implicated.

Systematic Review Registration

PROSPERO registration number CRD42017054132.

The synergistic effects of vitamin D and estradiol deficiency on metabolic syndrome in Chinese postmenopausal women

OBJECTIVE

Recent studies show that vitamin D (VitD) deficiency is associated with metabolic syndrome (MetS). Current evidence suggests that estrogen and VitD have similar physiological functions and potentially interact with bone health. We investigated the association between estradiol (E2) and 25-hydroxyvitamin-D [25(OH)D] with MetS and its components in Chinese postmenopausal women.

METHODS

In this cross-sectional study, we examined 616 postmenopausal women (aged 49-86 y) from southern China who were not taking estrogen and VitD/calcium supplements. At the end of data collection, serum E2 and 25(OH)D were measured for each participant. MetS was defined according to the 2006 International Diabetes Federation standard.

RESULTS

There was a positive correlation between 25(OH)D and E2. Higher 25(OH)D was associated with a favorable lipid profile, blood pressure, and glucose level. E2 was negatively associated with cholesterol, triglycerides, and blood pressure. The odds ratio for MetS was 2.19 (95% CI, 1.19-4.01, P value for trend=0.009) for deficient compared with sufficient women after multivariable adjustment. This association remained unchanged after further adjusting for E2 levels. After stratified analysis by VitD status, low E2 increased MetS risk in women with VitD deficiency (odds ratio = 3.49, 95% CI, 1.45-8.05 for the lowest vs the highest tertile).

CONCLUSIONS

These results suggest a synergistic role of VitD and E2 deficiency in MetS in Chinese postmenopausal women.

Influence of Supplementary Vitamin D on Bone Mineral Density When Used in Combination with Selective Estrogen Receptor Modulators

Objectives

Vitamin D is regarded as one of the major nutrients that significantly influence bone metabolism. This study aims to look at the effect of supplementary vitamin D on bone mineral density (BMD) in female osteoporosis patients.

Methods

The retrospective hospital record review was performed on 282 patients who were diagnosed with osteoporosis and treated with selective estrogen receptor modulators (SERMs) between January 2015 and December 2016. Of these patients, 151 were treated with SERMs only while 131 were treated using both SERMs and vitamin D supplements. The BMD and any occurrence of osteoporotic fracture episode were investigated after one year. The result of two groups was compared to find the significance of vitamin D.

Results

Overall, improvement in BMD score was observed in 76% of the patients. The BMD of the SERMs only group improved by 3% in spine and 1% in the hip while that of the SERMs with vitamin D group improved by 6% and 1% respectively. Statistical significance was noticed in the spine only. One distal radius fracture and one single level vertebral fracture occurred in patients of SERMs group while two distal radius fractures occurred in SERMs with vitamin D group. There was no occurrence of around hip fracture in both groups.

Conclusion

The result of the current study suggests that additional vitamin D may have some additive effect on improving BMD of the spine. Further study with the larger study population and the extended study period is recommended.

Vitamin D supplementation for prevention of cancer in adults

BACKGROUND

The evidence on whether vitamin D supplementation is effective in decreasing cancers is contradictory.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the beneficial and harmful effects of vitamin D supplementation for prevention of cancer in adults.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, Science Citation Index Expanded, and the Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Science to February 2014. We scanned bibliographies of relevant publications and asked experts and pharmaceutical companies for additional trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised trials that compared vitamin D at any dose, duration, and route of administration versus placebo or no intervention in adults who were healthy or were recruited among the general population, or diagnosed with a specific disease. Vitamin D could have been administered as supplemental vitamin D (vitamin D₃ (cholecalciferol) or vitamin D₂ (ergocalciferol)), or an active form of vitamin D (1α-hydroxyvitamin D (alfacalcidol), or 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D (calcitriol)).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors extracted data independently. We conducted random-effects and fixed-effect model meta-analyses. For dichotomous outcomes, we calculated the risk ratios (RRs). We considered risk of bias in order to assess the risk of systematic errors. We conducted trial sequential analyses to assess the risk of random errors.

MAIN RESULTS

Eighteen randomised trials with 50,623 participants provided data for the analyses. All trials came from high-income countries. Most of the trials had a high risk of bias, mainly for-profit bias. Most trials included elderly community-dwelling women (aged 47 to 97 years). Vitamin D was administered for a weighted mean of six years. Fourteen trials tested vitamin D₃, one trial tested vitamin D₂, and three trials tested calcitriol supplementation. Cancer occurrence was observed in 1927/25,275 (7.6%) recipients of vitamin D versus 1943/25,348 (7.7%) recipients of control interventions (RR 1.00 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.94 to 1.06); P = 0.88; I² = 0%; 18 trials; 50,623 participants; moderate quality evidence according to the GRADE instrument). Trial sequential analysis (TSA) of the 18 vitamin D trials shows that the futility area is reached after the 10th trial, allowing us to conclude that a possible intervention effect, if any, is lower than a 5% relative risk reduction. We did not observe substantial differences in the effect of vitamin D on cancer in subgroup analyses of trials at low risk of bias compared to trials at high risk of bias; of trials with no risk of for-profit bias compared to trials with risk of for-profit bias; of trials assessing primary prevention compared to trials assessing secondary prevention; of trials including participants with vitamin D levels below 20 ng/mL at entry compared to trials including participants with vitamin D levels of 20 ng/mL or more at entry; or of trials using concomitant calcium supplementation compared to trials without calcium. Vitamin D decreased all-cause mortality (1854/24,846 (7.5%) versus 2007/25,020 (8.0%); RR 0.93 (95% CI 0.88 to 0.98); P = 0.009; I² = 0%; 15 trials; 49,866 participants; moderate quality evidence), but TSA indicates that this finding could be due to random errors. Cancer occurrence was observed in 1918/24,908 (7.7%) recipients of vitamin D₃ versus 1933/24,983 (7.7%) in recipients of control interventions (RR 1.00 (95% CI 0.94 to 1.06); P = 0.88; I² = 0%; 14 trials; 49,891 participants; moderate quality evidence). TSA of the vitamin D₃ trials shows that the futility area is reached after the 10th trial, allowing us to conclude that a possible intervention effect, if any, is lower than a 5% relative risk reduction. Vitamin D₃ decreased cancer mortality (558/22,286 (2.5%) versus 634/22,206 (2.8%); RR 0.88 (95% CI 0.78 to 0.98); P = 0.02; I² = 0%; 4 trials; 44,492 participants; low quality evidence), but TSA indicates that this finding could be due to random errors. Vitamin D₃ combined with calcium increased nephrolithiasis (RR 1.17 (95% CI 1.03 to 1.34); P = 0.02; I² = 0%; 3 trials; 42,753 participants; moderate quality evidence). TSA, however, indicates that this finding could be due to random errors. We did not find any data on health-related quality of life or health economics in the randomised trials included in this review.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is currently no firm evidence that vitamin D supplementation decreases or increases cancer occurrence in predominantly elderly community-dwelling women. Vitamin D₃ supplementation decreased cancer mortality and vitamin D supplementation decreased all-cause mortality, but these estimates are at risk of type I errors due to the fact that too few participants were examined, and to risks of attrition bias originating from substantial dropout of participants. Combined vitamin D₃ and calcium supplements increased nephrolithiasis, whereas it remains unclear from the included trials whether vitamin D₃, calcium, or both were responsible for this effect. We need more trials on vitamin D supplementation, assessing the benefits and harms among younger participants, men, and people with low vitamin D status, and assessing longer duration of treatments as well as higher dosages of vitamin D. Follow-up of all participants is necessary to reduce attrition bias.

Effects of vitamin D supplements on bone mineral density: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Findings from recent meta-analyses of vitamin D supplementation without co-administration of calcium have not shown fracture prevention, possibly because of insufficient power or inappropriate doses, or because the intervention was not targeted to deficient populations. Despite these data, almost half of older adults (older than 50 years) continue to use these supplements. Bone mineral density can be used to detect biologically significant effects in much smaller cohorts. We investigated whether vitamin D supplementation affects bone mineral density.

METHODS

We searched Web of Science, Embase, and the Cochrane Database, from inception to July 8, 2012, for trials assessing the effects of vitamin D (D3 or D2, but not vitamin D metabolites) on bone mineral density. We included all randomised trials comparing interventions that differed only in vitamin D content, and which included adults (average age >20 years) without other metabolic bone diseases. We pooled data with a random effects meta-analysis with weighted mean differences and 95% CIs reported. To assess heterogeneity in results of individual studies, we used Cochran's Q statistic and the I(2) statistic. The primary endpoint was the percentage change in bone mineral density from baseline.

FINDINGS

Of 3930 citations identified by the search strategy, 23 studies (mean duration 23·5 months, comprising 4082 participants, 92% women, average age 59 years) met the inclusion criteria. 19 studies had mainly white populations. Mean baseline serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D concentration was less than 50 nmol/L in eight studies (n=1791). In ten studies (n=2294), individuals were given vitamin D doses less than 800 IU per day. Bone mineral density was measured at one to five sites (lumbar spine, femoral neck, total hip, trochanter, total body, or forearm) in each study, so 70 tests of statistical significance were done across the studies. There were six findings of significant benefit, two of significant detriment, and the rest were non-significant. Only one study showed benefit at more than one site. Results of our meta-analysis showed a small benefit at the femoral neck (weighted mean difference 0·8%, 95% CI 0·2-1·4) with heterogeneity among trials (I(2)=67%, p<0·00027). No effect at any other site was reported, including the total hip. We recorded a bias toward positive results at the femoral neck and total hip.

INTERPRETATION

Continuing widespread use of vitamin D for osteoporosis prevention in community-dwelling adults without specific risk factors for vitamin D deficiency seems to be inappropriate.

FUNDING

Health Research Council of New Zealand.

Vitamin D supplementation for prevention of mortality in adults

BACKGROUND

Available evidence on the effects of vitamin D on mortality has been inconclusive. In a recent systematic review, we found evidence that vitamin D3 may decrease mortality in mostly elderly women. The present systematic review updates and reassesses the benefits and harms of vitamin D supplementation used in primary and secondary prophylaxis of mortality.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the beneficial and harmful effects of vitamin D supplementation for prevention of mortality in healthy adults and adults in a stable phase of disease.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, the Science Citation Index-Expanded and Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Science (all up to February 2012). We checked references of included trials and pharmaceutical companies for unidentified relevant trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised trials that compared any type of vitamin D in any dose with any duration and route of administration versus placebo or no intervention in adult participants. Participants could have been recruited from the general population or from patients diagnosed with a disease in a stable phase. Vitamin D could have been administered as supplemental vitamin D (vitamin D3 (cholecalciferol) or vitamin D2 (ergocalciferol)) or as an active form of vitamin D (1α-hydroxyvitamin D (alfacalcidol) or 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D (calcitriol)).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Six review authors extracted data independently. Random-effects and fixed-effect meta-analyses were conducted. For dichotomous outcomes, we calculated the risk ratios (RRs). To account for trials with zero events, we performed meta-analyses of dichotomous data using risk differences (RDs) and empirical continuity corrections. We used published data and data obtained by contacting trial authors.To minimise the risk of systematic error, we assessed the risk of bias of the included trials. Trial sequential analyses controlled the risk of random errors possibly caused by cumulative meta-analyses.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 159 randomised clinical trials. Ninety-four trials reported no mortality, and nine trials reported mortality but did not report in which intervention group the mortality occurred. Accordingly, 56 randomised trials with 95,286 participants provided usable data on mortality. The age of participants ranged from 18 to 107 years. Most trials included women older than 70 years. The mean proportion of women was 77%. Forty-eight of the trials randomly assigned 94,491 healthy participants. Of these, four trials included healthy volunteers, nine trials included postmenopausal women and 35 trials included older people living on their own or in institutional care. The remaining eight trials randomly assigned 795 participants with neurological, cardiovascular, respiratory or rheumatoid diseases. Vitamin D was administered for a weighted mean of 4.4 years. More than half of the trials had a low risk of bias. All trials were conducted in high-income countries. Forty-five trials (80%) reported the baseline vitamin D status of participants based on serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels. Participants in 19 trials had vitamin D adequacy (at or above 20 ng/mL). Participants in the remaining 26 trials had vitamin D insufficiency (less than 20 ng/mL).Vitamin D decreased mortality in all 56 trials analysed together (5,920/47,472 (12.5%) vs 6,077/47,814 (12.7%); RR 0.97 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.94 to 0.99); P = 0.02; I(2) = 0%). More than 8% of participants dropped out. 'Worst-best case' and 'best-worst case' scenario analyses demonstrated that vitamin D could be associated with a dramatic increase or decrease in mortality. When different forms of vitamin D were assessed in separate analyses, only vitamin D3 decreased mortality (4,153/37,817 (11.0%) vs 4,340/38,110 (11.4%); RR 0.94 (95% CI 0.91 to 0.98); P = 0.002; I(2) = 0%; 75,927 participants; 38 trials). Vitamin D2, alfacalcidol and calcitriol did not significantly affect mortality. A subgroup analysis of trials at high risk of bias suggested that vitamin D2 may even increase mortality, but this finding could be due to random errors. Trial sequential analysis supported our finding regarding vitamin D3, with the cumulative Z-score breaking the trial sequential monitoring boundary for benefit, corresponding to 150 people treated over five years to prevent one additional death. We did not observe any statistically significant differences in the effect of vitamin D on mortality in subgroup analyses of trials at low risk of bias compared with trials at high risk of bias; of trials using placebo compared with trials using no intervention in the control group; of trials with no risk of industry bias compared with trials with risk of industry bias; of trials assessing primary prevention compared with trials assessing secondary prevention; of trials including participants with vitamin D level below 20 ng/mL at entry compared with trials including participants with vitamin D levels equal to or greater than 20 ng/mL at entry; of trials including ambulatory participants compared with trials including institutionalised participants; of trials using concomitant calcium supplementation compared with trials without calcium; of trials using a dose below 800 IU per day compared with trials using doses above 800 IU per day; and of trials including only women compared with trials including both sexes or only men. Vitamin D3 statistically significantly decreased cancer mortality (RR 0.88 (95% CI 0.78 to 0.98); P = 0.02; I(2) = 0%; 44,492 participants; 4 trials). Vitamin D3 combined with calcium increased the risk of nephrolithiasis (RR 1.17 (95% CI 1.02 to 1.34); P = 0.02; I(2) = 0%; 42,876 participants; 4 trials). Alfacalcidol and calcitriol increased the risk of hypercalcaemia (RR 3.18 (95% CI 1.17 to 8.68); P = 0.02; I(2) = 17%; 710 participants; 3 trials).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Vitamin D3 seemed to decrease mortality in elderly people living independently or in institutional care. Vitamin D2, alfacalcidol and calcitriol had no statistically significant beneficial effects on mortality. Vitamin D3 combined with calcium increased nephrolithiasis. Both alfacalcidol and calcitriol increased hypercalcaemia. Because of risks of attrition bias originating from substantial dropout of participants and of outcome reporting bias due to a number of trials not reporting on mortality, as well as a number of other weaknesses in our evidence, further placebo-controlled randomised trials seem warranted.

Vitamin D interactions with soy isoflavones on bone after menopause: a review

Vitamin D is known to increase Ca absorption in adults. However, the threshold vitamin D status to benefit Ca absorption is lower than the target vitamin D status for higher bone mineral density and lower fracture risk, pointing to another pathway for vitamin D to benefit bone. One possibility is by affecting osteoblast and osteoclasts directly. Vitamin D-related bone metabolism may also be affected by soy isoflavones, which selectively bind to the estrogen receptor β and may reduce bone loss in postmenopausal women. We discuss a possible synergistic effect of soy isoflavones and vitamin D on bone by affecting osteoblast and osteoclast formation and activity in postmenopausal women.

Vitamin D supplementation for prevention of mortality in adults

BACKGROUND

The available evidence on vitamin D and mortality is inconclusive.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the beneficial and harmful effects of vitamin D for prevention of mortality in adults.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, the Science Citation Index Expanded, and Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Science (to January 2011). We scanned bibliographies of relevant publications and asked experts and pharmaceutical companies for additional trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised trials that compared vitamin D at any dose, duration, and route of administration versus placebo or no intervention. Vitamin D could have been administered as supplemental vitamin D (vitamin D(3) (cholecalciferol) or vitamin D(2) (ergocalciferol)) or an active form of vitamin D (1α-hydroxyvitamin D (alfacalcidol) or 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D (calcitriol)).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Six authors extracted data independently. Random-effects and fixed-effect model meta-analyses were conducted. For dichotomous outcomes, we calculated the risk ratios (RR). To account for trials with zero events, meta-analyses of dichotomous data were repeated using risk differences (RD) and empirical continuity corrections. Risk of bias was considered in order to minimise risk of systematic errors. Trial sequential analyses were conducted to minimise the risk of random errors.

MAIN RESULTS

Fifty randomised trials with 94,148 participants provided data for the mortality analyses. Most trials included elderly women (older than 70 years). Vitamin D was administered for a median of two years. More than one half of the trials had a low risk of bias. Overall, vitamin D decreased mortality (RR 0.97, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.94 to 1.00, I(2) = 0%). When the different forms of vitamin D were assessed separately, only vitamin D(3) decreased mortality significantly (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.91 to 0.98, I(2) = 0%; 74,789 participants, 32 trials) whereas vitamin D(2), alfacalcidol, or calcitriol did not. Trial sequential analysis supported our finding regarding vitamin D(3), corresponding to 161 individuals treated to prevent one additional death. Vitamin D(3) combined with calcium increased the risk of nephrolithiasis (RR 1.17, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.34, I(2) = 0%). Alfacalcidol and calcitriol increased the risk of hypercalcaemia (RR 3.18, 95% CI 1.17 to 8.68, I(2) = 17%). Data on health-related quality of life and health economics were inconclusive.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Vitamin D in the form of vitamin D(3) seems to decrease mortality in predominantly elderly women who are mainly in institutions and dependent care. Vitamin D(2), alfacalcidol, and calcitriol had no statistically significant effect on mortality. Vitamin D(3) combined with calcium significantly increased nephrolithiasis. Both alfacalcidol and calcitriol significantly increased hypercalcaemia.

Outcomes of patients who participate in randomized controlled trials compared to similar patients receiving similar interventions who do not participate

BACKGROUND

Some people believe that patients who take part in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) face risks that they would not face if they opted for non-trial treatment. Others think that trial participation is beneficial and the best way to ensure access to the most up-to-date physicians and treatments. This is an updated version of the original Cochrane review published in Issue 1, 2005.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of patient participation in RCTs ('trial effects') independent both of the effects of the clinical treatments being compared ('treatment effects') and any differences between patients who participated in RCTs and those who did not. We aimed to compare similar patients receiving similar treatment inside and outside of RCTs.

SEARCH STRATEGY

In March 2007, we searched The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, The Cochrane Methodology Register, SciSearch and PsycINFO for potentially relevant studies. Our search yielded 7586 new references. In addition, we reviewed the reference lists of relevant articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized studies and cohort studies with data on clinical outcomes of RCT participants and similar patients who received similar treatment outside of RCTs.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

At least two review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion, assessed study quality and extracted data.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 30 new non-randomized cohort studies (45 comparisons): no new RCTs were found. This update now includes five RCTs (yielding 6 comparisons) and 80 non-randomized cohort studies (130 comparisons), with 86,640 patients treated in RCTs and 57,205 patients treated outside RCTs. In the randomised studies, patients were invited to participate in an RCT or not; these comparisons provided limited information because of small sample sizes (a total of 412 patients) and the nature of the questions they addressed. When the results of RCTs and non-randomized cohorts that reported dichotomous outcomes were combined, there were 98 comparisons; there was also heterogeneity (P < 0.00001, I(2) = 42.2%) between studies. No statistical significant differences were found for 85 of the 98 comparisons. Eight comparisons reported statistically significant better outcomes for patients treated within RCTs, and five comparisons reported statistically significant worse outcomes for patients treated within RCTs. There was significant heterogeneity (P < 0.00001, I(2) = 58.2%) among the 38 continuous outcome comparisons. No statistically significant differences were found for 30 of the 38 comparisons. Three comparisons reported statistically significant better outcomes for patients treated within RCTs, and five comparisons reported statistically significant worse outcomes for patients treated within RCTs.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review indicates that participation in RCTs is associated with similar outcomes to receiving the same treatment outside RCTs. These results challenge the assertion that the results of RCTs are not applicable to usual practice.

Biological options to enhance periprosthetic bone mass

There is a potential for the use of pharmacological agents to enhance the quality of bone around a total hip or knee prosthesis, reducing the risk of implant failure or periprosthetic fracture. Bisphosphonates are currently used for the management of postmenopausal osteoporosis and recent investigations also suggest a potential role for the management of postoperative periprosthetic bone loss. Current evidence suggests that the short-term gains may not be sustained in the long term. Teriparatide and parathyroid hormone 1-84 have been licensed to treat postmenopausal osteoporosis and may also be investigated for the potential to enhance periprosthetic bone mass. In addition, other agents such as calcitonin and strontium ranelate, non-anabolic agents such as doxycycline, and recombinant OPG adeno-associated virus (rAAV) gene therapy, may in the future provide solutions for enhancing periprosthetic bone mass.

Prevention of postmenopausal osteoporosis with pharmacological therapy: practice and possibilities

Postmenopausal osteoporosis (PMO) is a common disease that will become more prevalent in the future, with costly implications for public health. Prevention of the disease and its consequences, namely fractures, is therefore, important for both the individual and society. This review discusses: the goals of PMO prevention; the identification of women at risk, including the use of bone mineral density and bone turnover markers; the relevance in the prevention setting of various current guidelines for PMO management; recent data on therapeutic options for the treatment and prevention of PMO, in particular bisphosphonates, hormone replacement therapy and several other new pharmacological agents. It concludes that it is crucial for PMO prevention to start before disease onset and that, in the light of recent evidence, the existing guidelines need updating if they are to continue to be relevant.

Effects of estriol on cell viability and 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D3 receptor mRNA expression in cultured human osteoblast-like cells

It is clinically evident that administration of estriol (E3) increases the bone mass density of the lumbar vertebrae in postmenopausal women, and that combined treatment with estrogen and 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D3 (VD3) increases femoral neck bone mass density compared with treatment with estrogen alone in postmenopausal osteoporotic women. However, the molecular mechanism whereby treatment with E3 affects osteoblast cell function is still unknown. This study was conducted first to examine the comparative effects of E3 and VD3 on the cell viability of cultured human osteoblast-like cells (HOS) and second to determine whether E3 affects VD3 receptor mRNA expression in HOS. The cell viability and VD3 receptor mRNA expression of cultured HOS were assessed by MTT assay and semi-quantitative reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction with Southern blot analysis, respectively. The treatment with E3 increased the cell viability of cultured HOS compared with untreated control cultures. The increase in cell viability caused by the treatment with E3 was further augmented by the combined treatment with VD3. The addition of either E3 (3.52 x 10(-8) mol/l) or E3 (3.52 x 10(-7) mol/l) to cultured HOS for 24 h resulted in a fourfold and eightfold increase, respectively, in VD3 receptor mRNA expression in HOS, compared with that in untreated control cultures. These results suggest that E3 may up-regulate the cell viability of osteoblast cells, and that the concomitant treatment with E3 and VD3 further augments the cell viability being associated with an E3-induced increase in VD3 receptor mRNA expression in those cells.

Prevention of postmenopausal bone loss with exchange for short-term HRT for 1alpha-hydroxycholecalciferol

OBJECTIVE

The present study investigated bone turnover with exchange of hormone replacement therapy (HRT) by treatment with 1alpha-hydroxycholecalciferol in early postmenopausal women.

METHODS

Subjects included a total of 75 postmenopausal women between 49 and 59 years of age who visited the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology at Osaka Medical College Hospital for regular gynecological checkups and menopausal disorder, postmenopausal osteoporosis or hyperlipidemia, and were diagnosed with menopausal disorder or osteopenia. Changes in bone turnover and vertebral bone mineral density (BMD) in 28 patients who had undergone HRT; conjugated equine estrogen 0.625 mg daily and medroxyprogesterone acetate 2.5 mg daily) for at least 2 years and then switched to 1alpha-hydroxycholecalciferol (0.5 microg orally twice daily) and in 26 patients who were observed without drug administration after discontinuation of HRT were compared with those in 37 patients who continued HRT. BMD of the lumbar spine (L2-4) was determined using Dual Energy X-ray Absorptiometry.

RESULTS

While we observed a significant decrease in vertebral bone mass in the HRT-no medication group at 12 months (P=0.049) and 18 months (P=0.013), there was no significant decrease in vertebral bone mass in either the continuous HRT group or the group with change of HRT to 1alpha-hydroxycholecalciferol. In the group with change of HRT to 1alpha-hydroxycholecalciferol, although urinary pyridinoline level increased significantly from the baseline level throughout the study period (P<0.05), serum propeptide of type-1 procollagen (P1CP) level also increased significantly from the baseline level throughout this period (P<0.001). Furthermore, significant increase from the baseline value (P<0.01) was observed in serum osteocalcin level at 6, 12 and 18 months.

CONCLUSIONS

These results indicate that switching to 1alpha-hydroxycholecalciferol therapy after short-term HRT increased both bone resorption and bone formation, and permitted maintenance of increase in bone mass due to HRT for at least 18 months, though this switching accelerated bone turnover. This may have occurred because stimulation of bone formation induced by HRT was maintained by 1alpha-hydroxycholecalciferol, though bone turnover was slightly promoted because of withdrawal of HRT. This method was thus found to be very effective in preventing bone loss in patients who have discontinued HRT and are considered relatively contraindicated for use of estrogen.